Style Debate: What logos are acceptable to wear?

January 11, 2011 By Joe| Heads up: Buying via our links may result in us getting a commission. Here's why.

Wearing Logos – Obnoxious vs. Acceptable/Ignorable

Some of you have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to wearing logos. And most of us who aren’t quite zero tolerance (and in some cases, consider some logos even to be a guilty pleasure), we get it. Totally understand that you don’t want to be a walking billboard. But if you’re really zero tolerance, do you rip the red Levi’s Tag from the back of your jeans? What about your watch? Do you put a small square of electrical tape over the brand’s marque, like it’s a busted VCR flashing 12:00?

Logos are everywhere, and sometimes an otherwise well fitting & good looking garment gets ruined by that brand’s desire to advertise itself post-purchase. But often the logo is barely noticeable or so timeless that it’s not that big of a deal.

So where do you draw the line? What’s bragging, what’s tacky, and what’s just fine? For purpose of getting to the bottom of this, here’s a starting point. The obnoxious logos are to the left, and the more accepted and/or more ignorable logos to the right. The not often used Banana Republic Elephant and Armani Eagle sit on the fence:

….

Some notes:

Notice there’s no Abercrombie & Fitch or Ed Hardy on the graph. Those are off the chart.

Yes that’s a Hollister Logo near the Louis Vuitton. Rarely if ever mentioned on this site, they both puke their logos .all over everything. Louis Vuitton is what Hollister addicts buy when they win the lottery.

If it were 1999, Hilfiger would be on the far left side. He’s toned down the use of the logo, & come a long way.

The bigger the Ralph Lauren Pony, the farther to the left it should slide

Notice there’s no J. Crew on the graph. Points to them for not shoving a visible logo on all their stuff

There are exceptions to every rule, and the logo doesn’t necessarily reflect the character of the wearer.

Comments

I disagree with the Brooks Brothers one. If you can get a polo shirt or oxford shirt without the logo but instead buy one with the logo, then you it’s obnoxious. The other logos that are acceptable, ray-ban polo etc, usually come standard almost unavoidable issue on most of their stuff (ray ban especially)

Maybe its just me, but that chart says a lot less about the “aesthetics” of the logos then it does about the brand names associated with them.
Personally I think either of the two bird logos on the left are more visually appealing then the hideous Brooks Brothers pig logo, but I’m not going to start buying my dress shirts at American Eagle

And even though I like the look of the Polo logo I would NEVER wear an oxford with that logo on the chest. All that says is I have $79, and I look like every other douche between the age of 21 and 40.

I think it’s more about size and quantity instead of the actual logo. The Express logo isn’t bad and doesn’t bother me if it’s small. The huge logos they’re using now are just ridiculous. Same goes for the over sized Polo logo and Lacoste logo

I have always thought the Ray Ban logo was obnoxious. It is either on the lenses (or right next to them) or it is on the side and is large in comparison to the space it is on. But that is just my opinion. I feel the same way about DKNY glasses.

I like the BR logo on polos. For one, not many people know what it is so it is not like you are making a statement (at least in the circles I run in). Two, on a solid color polo it breaks up the color just slightly. Kind of like a pocket square for a polo. I wouldn’t get a logo on any other type of shirt though.

I have some 7 for All Mankind wayfarers and the logo is on top of the arm; that is classy. That said, I love the golden fleece logo from Brooks Brothers on my long-sleeve polo. And have have dozens of little polo riders in my closet from RL. They are a bit of a guilty pleasure in a closet full of starkness.

Definitely depends on the size of the logo, not the brand it’s associated with. If I’m paying an exorbitant amount of money on a designer shirt I don’t mind having a little “D&G” on the chest, but I do not want a 6 inch Express lion on my chest. It does go the other way however, I don’t mind a little lion but I do mind “Armani Exchange” scrawled across my entire body.

The more obscure the better.
The goofier the better (cf., the penguin).
The smaller the better.
The less visible the better. (A monogram under the left breast is better than on the pocket).

If the logo is meant to imply money or class, FAIL. That insufferable Polo pony is the best example, and its tackiness increases exponentially with size. (Twice as big is four times as bad. Ten times as big should be a capital offense.) Levi’s never charged $300 for a pair of jeans, thus the red tag is acceptable.

The longer it’s been around the better. The Lacoste gator is acceptable on a 25-year-old shirt, but tacky on a pair of rapper’s sneakers. The Brooks pig (er, I mean fleece) has been around forever, but only started cropping up on the breast of polo shirts 10 years ago. Thus, FAIL.

Overall, we do well to remember the three signs of class: antiquity, obscurity, and understatement. Those qualities apply to all of this too.

Love all the response. And I’m gonna jump in here to continue to play Devil’s advocate. @Pierre: I don’t know if it’s that easy, because the RL Polo Pony seems to be accepted by some, hated by others. I put it on the far right of the scale because to me? In its smallest most common form and mainly ignorable. I barely even realize it’s there. Now, that being said, I don’t own a single thing with the polo pony on it. So… maybe I’m subconsciously shunning Ralph’s trademark. @thisfits: Nice call on the return of the oarsmen. What’s going on there??

I’m too fresh out of the straight american eagle days of youth, and am currently forswearing logos (for the most part). I dunno, I like it much better without any logo at all.

Also, it’s funny. Now that you mention it, I don’t think I even know what the J.Crew logo looks like. The favicon of their site (jcrew.com) is a blue nautical anchor thing, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it anywhere else.

Joe, the problem with the pony isn’t size — it’s small enough. It’s that it’s meant to convey status or approval, as if spending more buys something better. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. But when Kennedy said of Nixon, “The guy has no class,” he wasn’t talking about money.

@Pierre: And that’s where I think we differ. I don’t see it as a status symbol at all. It might have been more so at one time, but… they’re in every Macy’s in America. (I think?). They’re pretty accessible in my eyes. I guess I don’t see them as snooty. But again, I don’t have a single article of clothing with that logo on it. And as far as class? Agreed on your JFK quote. But JFK also couldn’t keep it in his pants. As Pee Wee Herman so often put it… perhaps it really does “take one to know one”? One thing we can all agree on, JFK never wore a polo with a huge Express lion on it. When will they bring back their signature non-logo polo?

I have gone through stages where I went out of my way to only buy clothes sans logo, however lately I feel as long as the logo is small an unobtrusive it is OK. I really dislike the royal crest thing that some manufactures of both expensive and cheap labels use, because they really stand out. I am fond of the alligator logo on Lecoste polos (I think mainly because my mother bought me a Lecoste shirt when I was young and it was my favorite shirt).

Sunglasses, like Maui Jim or Costa Del Mar, where they print the logo on the top of one lens is fine because it is barely noticeable. However the Burberry, LV and Gucci logo causes me to undergo an optically induced neural meldown.

When I wear RL Polos, I could really care less about it conveying status or approval. It’s not the problem of the wearer, it’s the problem of the jealous guy thinking that. Let him spend his time being jealous over a $50 shirt. And I don’t see how it can convey snootiness since it is not worn specifically by upper class people; it’s to polo shirts what Kleenex is to tissues. It’s not a Turnbull & Asser shirt for $600.

That Polo logo is not something to be ashamed of. Ralph Lauren has done more in the fashion world than any of those BS brands like Hollister. As long as it’s not covering half the shirt and just looking gaudy, it’s hardly an issue.

Peter what’s wrong with Burberry? They are among the few luxury brands that aren’t obnoxious. Much of their clothing appears very understated and bland. I see $1000+ plain looking coats, and I feel like it needs more flash. Most of the time, no one even knows it’s Burberry until they see the equestrian and the check (hidden under some shirt collars and cuffs), and those designs are nothing to be ashamed of. Their haymarket check pattern has been copied everywhere. If you’re talking about their bags where the logo+check is most prominent, women love showing off the fact they have an expensive bag.

I think any logo is not acceptable…most guys whether you admitt it or not wear clothes with logos cuz you think its cool. A logo adds nothing to a shirt and only makes it look young and non-stylish. @matt if you need a 7 for all mankind logo on your sunglasses to make them “classy” you prolly have no style or know what classy is. @Andrew B paying an exorbitant amount for a shirt just cause its designer is bad but justify a logo on it so people will know it was expensive is just straight style-less. Just my two cents…part of having great style about doing what works for you and not caring what other people think…wearing clothes wit logos is jus crying for attention.

That was uncalled for I wasnt trying to personally attack anyone I guess I just got carried away…i just feel very strongly about people trying to show off logos and think it is stylish. Gloves are up sorry!

Ill give this another try I love your meter but do agree with DaveS in the fact that your list seems to be more about what brand or designer it belongs to and less about the asthetics of the logo regardless of size or usage

1) Generally can’t stand the idea of being a billboard for any brand
2) This is mostly because I don’t want anyone to be able to tell where I shop at a glance
3) Sometimes, rarely, I’ll allow a logo if I think it adds something, as with Penguin.
4) I have allowed the B.B. logo once because the shirt was way on sale and the logo was the same color as the fabric. It’s actually my most comfortable polo, so I’m okay with it. Love that fabric.
5) The only RL thing I would ever buy with a logo on it are undershirts.

I pretty much find all logos ridiculous. The bigger and bolder, the worse they are, of course. Others though simply are there to jack up the price. (Lacoste, for example, is somewhat subtle, but I can only think “sucker” everytime I see someone wearing an $80 polo shirt).